> Nuclear energy is a major power source for Korea, producing 29 percent of its electricity as of 2020, just after coal, which accounts for 35.6 percent. While

> Nuclear energy is a major power source for Korea, producing 29 percent of its electricity as of 2020, just after coal, which accounts for 35.6 percent. While it's possible for a country to abandon both coal and nuclear energy, my instinct is that doing so would be twice as expensive, and that reducing coal usage is the more urgent goal. If South Korea does manage to stay on target to be carbon neutral and free of nuclear energy by 2050, that would be a positive sign that other countries could achieve the same goals, but I think the slightly unique geopolitical situation around South Korea means that if they are unsuccessful, they can be considered a special case. Suppose the international community decided to tackle nuclear proliferation by introducing a treaty which restricts the siting of nuclear power stations to as few countries as possible. Obviously all the current declared nuclear weapon states would be exempted from the treaty's restrictions, since there is no danger that they would gain a technology they already possess, but they may be expected to foot some of the bill for countries that transition away from nuclear energy. That just leaves the small but sensitive matters of South Korea and Israel, which would presumably have to be given exemptions too in order for the US to back the treaty. Fortunately, however, there exists a way to delineate these countries in a way that is somewhat politically neutral, namely to specify that a state is allowed to pursue civilian nuclear power if it is a UN member and it is not officially recognised by at least one other UN member. In addition to South Korea and Israel, that would grant exemptions to North Korea and China (which are already exempt for having nuclear weapons), Cyprus and Armenia (which are hopefully not at risk of developing nuclear weapons).[0] In fact, Armenia currently does have a nuclear power station which may continue running until 2036, and another unit is being considered too.[1] Cyprus, on the other hand, seems to have no intention of being the location of a nuclear power station. To address a likely objection to this thought experiment, I will add that countries could also receive an exemption if they used most of their nuclear energy for carbon sequestration projects, which would have to be audited by international experts. Also, this hypothetical treaty would come into force in 2045, the centenary of the atomic bombings of Japan, and, ironically, it should include a clause requiring signatories to bring to the attention of the UN Security Council any country that breaks the principles of the treaty, even countries which are not signatories (leaving open the possibility of military action). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#UN_member_states_not_recognised_by_at_least_one_UN_member_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_re... [1] https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Armenia-plans-to-extend-operations-at-Metsamor-uni https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Armenia-plans-to-ext...